Translation: "Sales of Vista didn't go well due to Vista being crap, and Win7 isn't actually all that much better, so rather than offer a product people actually want we're going to exploit our monopoly and withhold necessary security fixes from others in order to force people to 'upgrade.'"

Hey genius, you do realize that Windows XP is still being sold, right? That brand new computers are shipping by the thousand every single day with Windows XP as the OEM-installed operating system? Can you seriously claim that it's alright for them to just walk away from a product they are still shipping because they have better things to do with their time? Did you give your position even five seconds of thought?

wrong analogy, you are focusing on the wrong issue. Real analogy: Do you still expect adobe to patch the latest versions of their software as long as they are in business? yes. What if they had a DLL that was affected in *all* versions. Do you expect them to patch it with the latest version? Hell yes you do. This is not a car warranty, so that argument is completely null. Things that are on XP cannot necessarily magically be "upgraded" like you think, additionally why should someone even feel remotely obli

Your argument doesn't work either though IMO. For one thing software changes a lot quicker than car technology so I was being pretty kind saying 10 years for the car stuff. You might expect a dealer to service a 30 year old car, but you're probably going to have to pay through the nose for it (and I've read of at least one case where a dealer didn't have the parts to service a car because it was so old).

XP is not the latest software, it is simply the most popular. Even if the majority of people in the world preferred the original VW Beetle from the 30s (or whenever it started production, I think it was in production for something crazy like 50 years), it doesn't mean that VW are still obliged to find and fix design flaws in it. You'd expect a product recall if a large problem was found in the latest incarnation of the Beetle sure - but we're not talking about the latest version, we're simply talking about the most popular version, and it's getting out of its support lifetime. I don't think any other version of Windows has lasted so long.

In this case the WINE team or some group like that could probably produce a replacement version of the TCP/IP stack to stick into Windows, it would be the equivalent of having to buy 3rd party copies of OEM parts for an ancient car. Yes you can "keep it running", but the original manufacturer has stopped supporting it. MS are not shutting down all old copies of XP, they're simply stopping support.

IMO it would be nice of them to keep supporting it, and some companies would do so, but they have no obligation to. And it's definitely not MS's style to be 'nice'.

Lets see... Kia, Hyundai, Mitsubishi and GM all offer 10-year powertrain warranties (that's "engine parts, transmission, drive system") on new cars. Chrysler's powertrain is covered for "lifetime" [cars.com] as long as you keep a record of proper maintenance.

Yeah, that's not "bumper-to-bumper" coverage, but TCP/IP is pretty damn close to an "essential" part of the car.

Ah, a car analogy. It's more like this: You go to the Honda dealership and take a look at their 2010 models and purchase a vehicle. You discover that the engine has a serious flaw in it and ask Honda for a fix. Honda refuses because that engine is based on an 8 year old engine design. Except in this case, instead of a Honda you bought a brand new netbook and instead of an engine it came with a new copy of Windows XP.

So the analogy here is, you buy a car. The manufacturer offers a 15 year warranty. 10 years in they find a flaw, they don't fix it and instead tell you to take it to a third party mechanic for a workaround at which point you find some lawyers and sue their contract breaching butt into next year.

"I don't particularly like Microsoft, in fact they are still my least favourite company in the world. But do you expect Adobe to keep bringing out patches for 8 year old versions of Photoshop?"

Apples and oranges. Took M$ 5 years to come out with a new OS and that OS was crap, MS even admits Vista is crap [theinquirer.net]. So it comes out with a new OS 3 years later but it's not released yet, no support for it.

So MS is saying "We won't patch XP because it's old, the Vista OS we patched is crap so don't use it, and the new Win7 OS has not been officially released so no support. Good luck!"

How does this rate insightful, when the fellow knows nothing about his topic?

Weird assertion: "Sales of Win7 are down so low MS isn't even promoting it in most places"

Newsflash: There is no retail release of Win7 yet.

Good point? "underpromise and overdeliver. They have been doing the opposite and wonder why people hate them.

Excellent diagnosis. MS should also learn how to sell to the business, preferably the CFO - not keep hyping 'features' to IT - often the most dysfunctional outfit in any org.

Wild claim: "There are lots of groundbreaking problems that people will not touch with a 20 foot pole"

C'mon! Cite a bloody reference, or just yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre!

In reality you make claims about Windows 7 sales that cannot be backed up - and use unspecific criticism to support the claim, without evidence. Allow me to explain some basics.

The bulk of Corporation and Government purchases? They already owned Windows 7, before it was released, through the Software Assurance benefit in their contract through their reseller. Microsoft measures "deployment", not "sales" with these folks... You know Home Depot, Wal*Mart, Hewlett Packard, General Motors, even Google.

Despite not even being offered as a public, retail item, Windows 7 will do very well on the day it goes to market. Retail sales are a tricky number. Most are through OEM installation on new computers - not shiny disc SKUs. So, for 2 months, these have been ramped through the manufacturing channels.

Let's talk in February - when the after-Christmas inventory purge is complete. Then we can compare notes.

I just had to post an invoice to the marine corp's web site. I luckily had one computer at work that was not upgraded to ie8. It would only respect ie6 or 7, and had some issues if I just changed the user agent on FF.

If people keep being forced to upgrade their browsers, no one will be able to use the government systems anymore.

I'm sure it will be an issue for the little companies billing, but you'll never hear about it.

The Navy will simply subcontract-out to Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and other defense companies to upgrade all their systems from XP to Windows 7 and fix any programs that "break" as a result. It will employ some 10,000 workers at a cost of 1.4 trillion dollars. Then it will fail to come-in on time, so they'll spend an extra 6 months and 0.3 trillion on schedule overrun.

Actually, this isn't funny and may well be the type of attention-getting answer we need to this problem. People should start sending off some emails to their representatives that points this problem out. Microsoft says they are supporting WindowsXP until 2014 for security matters and other serious problems. I'd say this qualifies. This "move" on Microsoft's part represents a squeeze play against all of its customers not the least of which is the U.S. Federal Government. And with all the attention on money problems, it can't be ignored or written off.

I foresee a congressional hearing on the matter should Microsoft continue down this road.

If the government plans to spend trillions on this surprise upgrade requirement, perhaps moving to another OS might be another consideration to weigh in. We KNOW Microsoft will leverage its position as "the" OS vendor to do nearly anything it wants. We can't force them to behave. Perhaps the best thing to do is push the misbehaving child to the curb and use someone else's product.

How about you read the article before you start yelling at your congressman? RFTA:

In the revised advisory, Microsoft explained why it won't patch Windows XP, the world's most popular operating system. "By default, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP SP3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition SP2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability," the company said. "Windows XP SP2 and later operating systems include a stateful host firewall that provides protection for computers against incoming traffic from the Internet or from neighboring network devices on a private network."

Actually they wont have to do anything if they are running SP2 or higher. They wont be patching VANILLA XP BUT SP2 AND LATER ARE FINE. RTFA:

"In the revised advisory, Microsoft explained why it won't patch Windows XP, the world's most popular operating system. "By default, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP SP3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition SP2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability," the company said. "Windows XP SP2 and later operating systems include a stateful host firewall that provides protection for computers against incoming traffic from the Internet or from neighboring network devices on a private network."

XP SP2 and later are fine by default. What does that mean? Does that mean it's the only possible configuration? Or is it reasonable that an XP SP2 computer could end up in a state where it does have a listening service configured in the client firewall? Doesn't Vista include "a stateful host firewall that provide protection for computers against incoming traffic from the Internet [...]"? I should think so, so wouldn't that invalidate their reasoning?

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is perfectly correct in not patching XP. The problem is how they communicate it. If they're patching Vista (a client OS) and they're patching Server 2003 (similar codebase to XP), then this makes it seem like they don't want to bother fixing XP, even though it's broken. If Microsoft had said, "the XP codebase is in no way vulnerable", I'd be completely satisfied. But they didn't. They said, "XP is broken, but by default it's protected".

Many people have compared defense work to "white collar welfare". I think the private companies are more frugal than that, since they are constantly cutting costs & laying-off workers, but having worked at the FAA it seems like a sound argument. I saw government workers sitting around doing nothing but surfing the net day-after-day. The FAA could lay-off 75% of the workforce and not notice any drop in output.

But of course if the FAA did that, then the politicians who represent those workers would scream bloody murder, and the layoffs would be canceled.

I have a friend who just got hired into group A working for the DOD. His job is to track how the stimulus money gets spent in group B. Actually his entire groups job is to track that money. Guess what group B's job is? Track how the money gets spent in group A. It's so ludicrous that you can't make this stuff up.

It's white collar welfare and has been for years. It's the advanced version of dig a hole and fill it in.

Two blonde girls were working for the county public works department. One would dig a hole and the other would follow behind her and fill the hole in. They worked up one side of the street, then down the other, then moved on to the next street, working furiously all day without rest, one girl digging a hole, the other girl filling it in again.

An onlooker was amazed at their hard work, but couldn't understand what they were doing. So he asked the hole digger, "I'm impressed by the effort you two are putting in to your work, but I don't get it... why do you dig a hole, only to have your partner follow behind and fill it up again?"

The hole digger wiped her brow and sighed, "Well, I suppose it probably looks odd because we're normally a three-person team. But today the girl who plants the trees called in sick."

Ah so when it comes to patching severe holes the codebase is way too old with its 12 - 15 years, but when it comes to revealing the source it is still very relative. Then how does patching very relative code become "not feasible"? "Can't" or "won't"? Which is it MS?

Except I bought a brand NEW license of XP on my Acer netbook less than 1 year ago. That means Microsoft received NEW payment for that license in the last year (and a bunch of others) so obviously they're making money on it. Unlike patching cars you don't have to make additional parts, once you fix the problem in one copy of XP it is near-zero to fix the problem for ALL XPs as they're exactly the same.

My local stores still sell NEW netbooks with NEW licenses of XP on them... where's bug support for the new buyers?

The point is, it's Microsoft's fault that the problem has been allowed to escalate. It's Microsoft that released a hideous "upgrade" to XP and allowed it continue well past the point where it should have been consigned to history. It's Microsoft that continues selling a defunct OS out of a scrambling fear to stop a competitor from making inroads into a netbook market that they had disregarded.
How many millions of netbooks with XP on them have been sold over the past 2 years? MS apologists like yourselves

That's not really a fair comparison. The branch that is currently developed of the Windows NT codebase is Windows 7. The branch that is currently developed of the FreeBSD codebase is 8-CURRENT. Fixes are backported to 7-STABLE and 6-STABLE from there. FreeBSD 4 was the stable release series back when Windows XP was released, and it no longer receives updates. The last release from the 4.x branch was in 2005 and, although the RELENG_4 branch is still open for commits, it is not officially supported by the FreeBSD team. Of course, upgrading to FreeBSD 6 was free and easy for FreeBSD 4 users...

The vast majority of DoD's systems are Windows XP with no plans of moving to Vista. US Central Command (CENTCOM) is the only command of which I've heard that has said it is moving to Vista, and FSM only knows why.

The U.S. Navy's and Marine Corp's NMCI computing infrastructure is all Windows XP. Let's see whether or not Microsoft withholds a patch from them.

Since 2008, the US Navy will acquire only systems based on open technologies and standards. That excludes M$ products explicitly in every way but name. The TCP/IP being just one example of failure on M$ part to implement standards. US Navy is ditching M$ [fcw.com].

They'll probably go with an American company like Red Hat or roll their own spin of Red Hat.

The question remaining is will Bill's father's political connections keep lil Bill out of Camp X-Ray or not? If you've got Windows on your network, then you have a personnel problem, not just a network security problem.

Interesting article. I work with the Navy, as well as other services, DoD, etc and have never heard this. I've also seen the DoN purchase proprietary systems this year alone, so at least some people haven't gotten that memo. Perhaps for areas where viable open source alternatives exist, I could see that, like for servers. But many of the workstation applications have no alternative. And with changes in command every few years, his successor is just as likely to continue with MS as not.

The question remaining is will Bill's father's political connections keep lil Bill out of Camp X-Ray or not?

You are being ridiculous. Microsoft under Bill Gates got a free pass from Ashcroft. The Gates Foundation is part of a program to push western IP law throughout the world; if you don't provide patent and other protections for big pharma, you don't get any inoculations. At the same time, the Gates foundation is making for-profit investments in things like oil refineries which are causing lung bleeding in children they're providing inoculation to. Meanwhile, the stated goal of eliminating certain diseases is impossible because the restrictions the foundation is placing mean that not all nations will pick up the inoculations, and a partial cure is no cure.

Bill Gates is now part of the power structure controlling America and attempting to use it to control the world. Barring some one-step-away-from-a-persian-cat-and-a-monocle actions by BillyG, his future is secure.

The DOS/DDOS possible via the latest weakness in Windows 2000's IP stack @ least (uses RDR20.DLL as the LSP (layered service provider) vs. MSWSOCK.DLL (the LSP used in XP/Server 2003 onwards, by way of comparison, & this is where I think the problem lies largely, as it is the "most radically different part" of the IP stack in Windows 2000 vs. the more current builds of Windows that I could see @ least)?

WELL - That's taken care of by the SynAttackProtect setting here -> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\Curre

Why not? The Pentagon continued using Halliburton for years, on huge no-bid contracts, even when its divisions were installing showers in Iraq that electrocuted our servicemembers. And that's just the worst failure the public heard about, after most of a decade of abusive cronyism.

Microsoft is much richer than even Halliburton, and its failures much less publicly scandalous. Why would it face a tougher standard? I'm sure Dick Cheney owns a lot of Microsoft stock, too.

The U.S. Navy's and Marine Corp's NMCI computing infrastructure is all Windows XP.

I questioned the Navy's IT management for years, failing to see the long term wisdom behind the program and thinking it was a pork spending program awarded to political insiders. But, I'm forced to admit NMCI has been tremendously successful at bringing productivity to a near stand still. Patching computers no one can use is hardly even necessary.

It is unclear how large a threat this is to the end user. However the fact that XP is being loaded on netbooks suggests that Microsoft has a revenue stream that it should protect by writing a patch if it is serious.

It is unclear how large a threat this is to the end user. However the fact that XP is being loaded on netbooks suggests that Microsoft has a revenue stream that it should protect by writing a patch if it is serious.

Excellent point. I wonder if this could put MS into legal trouble. Does anybody know what software distribution laws say about distributing software with known security issues without the intention of filling them? Are they at least bound to notify the user? I mean people have burnt themselves on hot coffee and won lawsuits because they weren't notified. Surely this should be a more valid suit, as you don't even need to be a complete moron to get affected.

It is unclear how large a threat this is to the end user. However the fact that XP is being loaded on netbooks suggests that Microsoft has a revenue stream that it should protect by writing a patch if it is serious.

The Coca-Cola Corporation also had a steady worldwide revenue stream with its nearly 80 years old original Coke formula, and everything went smoothly when it upgraded it to the improved and more delicious New Coke- Oh wait.

It is unclear how large a threat this is to the end user. However the fact that XP is being loaded on netbooks suggests that Microsoft has a revenue stream that it should protect by writing a patch if it is serious.

The Coca-Cola Corporation also had a steady worldwide revenue stream with its nearly 80 years old original Coke formula, and everything went smoothly when it upgraded it to the improved and more delicious New Coke- Oh wait.

Well, this is just MS's own business practices backfiring. MS with XP, Vis

"Colonize" didn't exist until the printer Benjamin Franklin started using it (and the British printers criticized him for turning a noun into a verb). These are called inkhorn words, because it's as if they magically sprung from the ink well. Some succeed while others like Bush's "misunderestimate" or Jefferson's "undamage" did not.

Two questions:1. Does 7's XP mode potentially have this issue, or is there a compatibility layer so xp doesn't talk directly to the network?2. They seemed to be able to make massive security updates for code that was that old, and still patch a number of other issues. What about this REALLY makes it so hard to code?

In the end, while I understand not wanting to waste resources on way older products, I think it is a marketing move.

The XP virtual machine is not accessible from outside as it talks via a NAT router. Any attack would need to come from the Windows 7 host machine, but if that was pwned, there are many other ways to attack the XP virtual machine.

While the code may very well be 15 years old, that does not really matter to the user. What matters is how long ago Microsoft sold the product. If they sell software today that uses some code written 15 years ago you should be able to expect security updates for some period of time. Now, had they decided not to patch software they haven't sold in 15 years that would be totally OK.

This is the key point. It doesn't matter when the code was written - if it was sold "today", it's current code. Current code (sold on the scale of an OS) should be fixed, or declared "broken" and not sold.

This is the key point. It doesn't matter when the code was written - if it was sold "today", it's current code. Current code (sold on the scale of an OS) should be fixed, or declared "broken" and not sold.

The article mentioned an effective workaround: turn on Windows Firewall.

Now, had they decided not to patch software they haven't sold in 15 years that would be totally OK.

If a defect in a 1994 Taurus was found, Ford would recall the vehicles at great expense to them. Especially if it was a design defect in an engine that was basically used in an engine still produced for a 2003 Taurus.

There is NO excuse for any software company to NOT patch security holes in any product, no matter how old.

There's no remote code execution possible with this on XP, only DoS. You can make the system essentially freeze while the packeting is going on but that's it. Only Vista and Server 2008 have remote code execution exploits from this bug.

Also you can only exploit this if the machine has software accepting TCP connections. If you have an (application) firewall blocking all incoming connections with no exceptions (such as XP SP2+ has by default) there's no real problem.

For some unfathomable reason, MS rates remote code execution as a LOW impact problem for XP.

But that's not what they're doing! There is no remote code execution vulnerability on Windows 2000, XP, or Server 2003. Only Vista and Server 2008 are susceptible to remote code execution. This is a Denial of Service vulnerability on NT 5.x systems, and you have to have the firewall disabled (and, indeed, no stateful hardware firewall at all) in order to be vulnerable.

Since XP is still being shipped and supported [computerworld.com] on netbooks this seems a little strange. What's the message - spend extra on memory and hard drive so that you can run XP instead of Linux but we won't give you security patches?

If you read the article you'll see systems with SP2 or SP3 are unaffected:

"By default, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP SP3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition SP2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability,

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crushes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field (A), multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X...

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crushes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field (A), multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X...

If X is less that the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

The first rule of screwing the public is we don't talk about screwing the public.

The second rule of screwing the public is WE DON'T TALK ABOUT SCREWING THE PUBLIC!

The true cost of releasing a patch is not in compiling and distributing the fix. The money is spent on verification. By not releasing the patch to XP and w2k my estimates are that Microsoft is saving man-years in verification.

Today GM announced that the GMC trucks have some fundamental flaw and they are prone to explode randomly. GM said it wont fix the issue because the design is very old, and fixing it is unfeasible. When asked if they will when they stopped shipping trucks with the fatal flaw, GM spokesman said, "we have not stopped building or shipping them yet. We need to compete with the low cost competitors in the net-truck market and so we continue to make and ship the trucks, but we wont fix the safety issue. The drivers may wrap themselves in bags filled with thermocol peanuts to get some measure of protection.

Your analogy is flawed in three ways. First, MS doesn't make cars. Cars are useful. MS makes on OS which is a system component and pretty much useless by itself. Second MS is a monopoly, whereas GM is not. Third, the flaw in XP is unlikely to result in fatalities or even serious injury. Allow me to fix your analogy:

Today GM announced that the GMC trucks have some fundamental flaw in the lock mechanisms and they are prone to open and start the truck randomly. GM said it can't fix the issue because the component is supplied by EvilCorp and current law makes it illegal for them to change anything inside the locking mechanism device. Further GM can't buy locking mechanisms from anyone else because EvilCorp has a monopoly on selling them and has used criminal acts to drive all real competitors out of business. EvilCorp has already lost court cases to that effect, but after making campaign contributions to your elected officials decided not to punish them. EvilCorp says the design is very old, and fixing it is unfeasible. When asked if they will stop shipping trucks with the flaw, GM spokesman said, "we have not stopped building or shipping them yet. We don't have any real options here. We did try partnering with a company that repackages locking systems made for free by a nonprofit organization, but they aren't compatible with existing trailer hitches, AC systems, or tires and switching all of those is hard to do since all the component suppliers out there build them to work with EvilCorp products. Also EvilCorp gives away free gas tanks with every lock mechanism, but because they are really weird, gas has had to be reformulated so it has problems working in gas tanks from any normal company and nobody really sells standards compliant gas anymore. Car buyers are encouraged to remove the batteries from their trucks whenever they stop and park them in locked garages if they contain anything valuable."

Microsoft Corporation has announced a limited one-off extension of availability of its Windows XP operating system to April 2101 after criticism from large customers and analysts. This is the fifty-sixth extension of XP's availability since 2008.

Through successive releases of Microsoft's flagship Windows operating system, demand for XP has remained an important factor for businesses relying on stable XP-specific software and installations, who have pushed back strongly against the software company's attempts to move them to later versions. Windows administration skills have become rare in recent years and consultants have demanded high fees. Reviving Windows administrators from cryogenic freezing has proven insufficient to fill the market gap, as almost all begged to work on COBOL instead.

"Windows XP is currently in the extremely very prolonged super-extended support phase and Microsoft encourages customers to migrate to Windows for Neurons 2097 as soon as feasible," said William Gates V, CEO and great-grandson of the company founder. "Spare change?"

Microsoft Corporation, along with Monsanto Corporation and the RIAA, exists as a protected species in the Seattle Memorial Glass Crater Bad Ideas And Warnings To The Future National Park in north-west Washington on the radioactive remains of what was once the planet Earth, under the protection of our Linux-based superintelligent robot artificial intelligence overlords. Company revenues for 2098 were over $15.

Best Buy's recent "training" slide #9, where they say that "Linux is safer than Windows" is a myth, the "Real Facts" states (referring to Linux) 'There's no guarantee that when security vulnerabilities are discovered, an update will be created. Users are on their own.'Here's proof that that statement is really talking about Windows...

I say give 'em a month, tops, and then there will be a patch (or news of a coming patch) for Windows XP.

Now would be a terrible time for Microsoft to alienate all those big corps that have XP and force them into another OS, if they want to keep their customers.It'd be great for everyone else, as customers may start looking into things they would never have considered otherwise, such as various open source operating systems, and the necessary apps it would take to keep them going in their workflow, post-transition.

The way it looks is, some people (usually companies) will view this as a threat from Microsoft that reads: "Upgrade if you want protection."Some of them in this group will obediently upgrade to Fista or 7.Some of them will reluctantly upgrade to Vista or 7.Some of them will stay with XP and find other ways to secure themselves.Some of them will [cross their fingers and hope|pray] that Microsoft changes their mind and offers a patch.Some of them will be offended and migrate to another OS outside of Big Red Robotland.And of course, some of them will feel that litigation solves everything, and want to take MS to court for "refusing to patch an OS that is in such widespread use" (or) "intentionally posing a security risk".

Refusing a patch like this, in my humble opinion, isn't something you want to do until a few months after your new OS lands, at the bare minimum. That way, you've already got people migrating.

XP's patching lifecycle isn't up yet, from what I can see here, though: XP SP2 should be good until July of 2010 [microsoft.com], and SP3 should be good a bit longer than that, so I'm surprised no-one has really called 'em out on that.

1. Buy Netbook with Microsoft WIndows XP installed.2. Run all updates.3. Browse web, get hacked by this exploit. Lose money through "identity theft" / bank fraud.4. Turn up in court with the receipt for the netbook & windows license stating when purchased, and the date and time Microsoft refused to patch the hole which caused your loss.5. State that Microsoft is profiting from a product which is unsuitable for purpose, and it knows is unsuitable.6....7. Read Microsoft fine print and realise that you have to now give Microsoft your first born child for ever doubting that their asses are covered.

Please..all underlying architecture has not changed from xp to vista, even though they want you to believe this...and for them to correct the wrapper on xp, would be trivial, however, they are testing the waters about phasing out xp, and want to see what the backlash will be like, seeing as no one wants vista garbage, and maybe even no windows7!

I prefer, being given the opportunity of just paying a yearly fee to keep getting updates on a system that runs properly compared to their new bloated versions of vista etc... too bad no one can pick it up like a linux distro and start their own version of windows...

Don't run an OS that you can't patch yourself. Seriously, if we put our trust in these guys after they've proven time and again that they really don't represent our best interests we are the only ones to blame. It's about time to let MS go gently into the night alone and without a sleeping bag into a rabid pack of wolves.

The fix is to NEVER buy Microsoft products, again. Microsoft is a defective corporation that has made a mint off of selling knowingly defective products and reselling the HOPE that these defects will be fixed in the next update but reneging again, and again, and again, and again. MSFT's example of no/low quality has become the new American metric of quality, its business plan, corroding our society's business and work ethic, a complete mockery of the consumer laws on mechantability, deservedly debasing our reputation for quality goods.

Since the government has been ineffective in enforcing these laws, falling for MS legal theories, only insistent market rejection will [partially] protect a consumer from the borg. No doubt we will be seeing more FUD IP attacks, like SCO, traceable to MSFT. Good luck to all. Fsck MSFT.

Dude,
How often do you hear of Mac Viruses running rampant? The reason Microsoft has to constantly patch their crap is because it's terrible. Mac is much more solid and the whole issue goes away... You are showing your Microsoft-centric world view. In the Mac world, the need to constantly fix old mistakes just is not a problem. It's a non issue.

Certainly not. Macs are made by humans. However, you must have lived on Mars the past decade to not notice the constant stream of viruses and other trojans that are so successful finding new exploits in the MS ecosystem. Though indeed problems do occur in the mac, they are on a vastly smaller scale than on Windows. So, though I did make an exaggeration by making an absolute statement, it does jive with reality. Having been a software developer professionally for 13 years and privately for 20, I stand by my

And with Windows 7 returning us to the age of malformed-packet-inducable-BSOD, I'm doing everything I can to maintain XP as our platform over the next 2-3 years, including a final round of PC purchases with XP downgrade rights in place.

Apple's not a terribly good example here. You buy software AND hardware from Apple. That nice G5 you bought 5 years ago? No parts available from Apple anymore, sorry. Oh, and Snow Leopard's dropped PPC support so won't run on it. One thing Apple's never been is scared of breaking backwards compatibility.

Posting this way up here so people see it. Summary is mostly incorrect. From TFA:
"In the revised advisory, Microsoft explained why it won't patch Windows XP, the world's most popular operating system. "By default, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP SP3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition SP2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability," the company said. "Windows XP SP2 and later operating systems include a stateful host firewall that provides protection for computers against incoming traffic from the Internet or from neighboring network devices on a private network."